Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4322  of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8643 of 2009)

Chhanga Singh & Anr.                                 …Appellants

Versus

Union of India & Anr.                          …Respondents                      

O R D E R  

1. Leave granted.  

2. The  controversy  in  this  appeal  lies  in  a  very  narrow  

compass. The sole issue involved herein is as to whether the  

appellants  are  entitled  for  interest  over  the  amount  of  

solatium granted to them.  

3. Admitted facts necessary to adjudicate upon the controversy  

in this appeal are that:  

I. The land of the appellants stood notified under Section 4 of  

the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter being referred to  

as ‘the Act”) on 30th October, 1963. In respect of the said

Page 2

land, Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on  

16th January, 1969.  

II. Compensation was awarded under Section 11 of the Act on  

17th September, 1986 assessing the market value of the land  

@ Rs.4350 per bigha. Being aggrieved, the appellants made  

an application for reference under Section 18 of the  Act, and  

the  Reference  Court  vide  award  dated  Ist  June,  2001  

assessed  the  market  value  of  the  land  @Rs.16,750/-  per  

bigha and awarded the solatium as provided under the Act.  

However,  interest  was  not  awarded  on  the  amount  of  

solatium and it  restricted only to the enhanced amount of  

compensation.  

III. The appellants filed the execution petition on 3rd September,  

2001.

IV. It  was  during the  pendency of  the  execution  proceedings,  

this Court decided the matter in Sunder v. Union of India,  

(2001) 7 SCC 211 on 19th September, 2001 explaining that  

persons-interested  like  the  appellants  are  also  entitled  for  

interest on amount of solatium.

4. So far as this case is concerned, the respondents made the  

payment  as  per  the award of  the Reference Court  dated Ist  June,  

2001 on 15th April, 2004 partly. The appellants filed an application  

2

Page 3

on  6th May,  2004  for  claiming the  balance  amount  including  the  

interest  on  solatium.  The  Execution  Court  rejected  the  said  

application  vide  order  dated  22nd November,  2006  which  was  

challenged unsuccessfully before the High Court by the appellants as  

the High Court rejected their claim for the said relief vide impugned  

judgment and order dated 10th September, 2008.

Hence, this appeal.  

5. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  gone  

through various judgments.  

6. However, learned counsel for the appellants have placed a  

very  heavy  reliance  on  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Gurpreet  

Singh  v.  Union  of  India (2006)  8  SCC  457,  wherein  the  legal  

position in this regard has been explained as under:   

“54. One other question also was sought to be raised   and answered by this Bench though not referred to it.   Considering that the question arises in various cases   pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the   counsel to address us on that question. That question is   whether  in  the  light  of  the  decision  in  Sunder,  the   awardee/decree-holder  would  be  entitled  to  claim   interest  on  solatium  in  execution  though  it  is  not   specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that   an  execution  court  cannot  go  behind  the  decree.  If,   therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been   made and the same has been negatived either expressly   or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree   of  the Reference Court  or of  the appellate court,  the   execution court will have necessarily to reject the claim   for interest on solatium based on Sunder on the ground   

3

Page 4

that the execution court cannot go behind the decree.   But if the award of the Reference Court or that of the   appellate  court  does  not  specifically  refer  to  the   question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim  had  not  been  made  and  rejected  either  expressly  or   impliedly  by  the  Reference  Court  or  the  appellate   court, and merely interest on compensation is awarded,   then it would be open to the execution court to apply   the  ratio  of  Sunder  and  say  that  the  compensation   awarded  includes  solatium  and  in  such  an  event   interest  on  the  amount  could  be  directed  to  be   deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify   that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in   pending executions and not in  closed executions and   the  execution  court  will  be  entitled  to  permit  its   recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder (19- 9-2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify   that  this  will  not  entail  any reappropriation  or fresh   appropriation  by  the  decree-holder.  This  we  have   indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our   power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution   of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation   on this question.”

While deciding the said case, this Court has considered and  

explained the judgment in Sunder (Supra).

7. The view taken by the Constitution Bench has consistently  

been re-iterated and followed by this Court as is evident from the  

judgments  in  Land  Acquisition  Officer  and  Assistant  

Commissioner  &  Anr.  v.  Shivappa  Mallappa  Jigalur  &  Ors.  

(2010)  12 SCC 387;  Nadirsha Shapurji  Patel  (dead)  by Lrs.  &  

Ors.   v. Deputy Collector & Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.  

(2010) 13 SCC 234; and  Iyasamy & Anr. v. Special Tahsildar,  

Land Acquisition (2010) 10 SCC 464.  

4

Page 5

8. In view of the above, the submissions of the appellants are  

worth  acceptance.  The  appeal  is  accordingly  allowed.  The  

respondents  are  directed  to  make  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  

solatium as per the law laid down in Gurpreet Singh (Supra) within  

a period of three months from today.  

……………………………………J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

……………………………………J. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)  

New Delhi, May 8,  2012

5